Government Ltd.

High Court Takes A Look At Term Limits

June 26, 1994|By Vincent J. Schodolski, a member of the Tribune's West Coast and bureau.

SEATTLE — Four years after angry voters began endorsing term limits in a wave of ballot initiatives, the U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to accept a case that is expected to quickly resolve what has become a high-stakes national political debate.

At issue is whether states can impose limits on the number of times U.S. Senate and House members can run for re-election or if the qualifications for office that are chiseled into the nation's Constitution-age, residency, citizenship-can be altered only by amendment.

From Arkansas to Washington, voters have gone to the polls eager to limit incumbency-usually to two six-year terms for senators and three two-year terms for House members-in what generally has been portrayed as a frustrated backlash by those who view Congress as ineffective and out of touch.

Since 1990 voters in 15 states have adopted initiatives that set term limits for Congress members and, in some cases, state officials.

Seven more states, including Illinois, are expected to have similar initiatives on the ballot in November.

So with an increasingly crowded bandwagon headed down what might be a constitutionally bumpy road, the Supreme Court agreed with unusual speed to hear an appeal of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling last March that struck down term limits approved by voters there.

Experts think the high court moved quickly because of the number of states that in just four years were taking action on laws that could be constitutionally questionable.

"I assume they took it (the Arkansas case) because they realized that this issue was popping up in about half of the states and that it is not going to go away," said James Pharris, a Washington state assistant attorney general. "This is a major national issue."

Pharris argued Washington's case in favor of term limits when a 1992 voter-approved law was challenged in federal court and ultimately ruled unconstitutional.

The first state to adopt term limits was Colorado in 1990. The next year, Washington rejected a ballot initiative on the subject, only to have 60 percent of voters approve a reworded version in 1992.

Now on appeal in the U.S. Ninth Circuit, the Washington law, like the Arkansas legislation, limited the number of terms senators and representatives could serve to two and three respectively. The Washington law takes effect in 1998.

And like the Arkansas law, the Washington initiative said anyone who had served his allotted time in Congress still could run as a write-in candidate but could not appear on the printed ballot.

In the view of those opposed to term limits, the initiatives sweeping the nation are ill advised and almost certainly unconstitutional.

"We think that the Constitution is the wisest way of structuring our government," said Fredric Tausend, who was the attorney for the League of Women Voters in their suit challenging the Washington law. Fourteen-term Rep. Tom Foley (D-Wash.), the House speaker, joined the suit.

Ironically, under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the adoption of the Constitution, term limits did apply.

They were eliminated during debate at the Constitutional Convention, which established the criteria for holding office in Congress based on minimum age, length of U.S. citizenship and time of residency in a particular state.

In arguing against the Washington law, attorneys said the state's initiative had violated aspects of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, namely freedom of speech and the right of free association.

Kevin Hamilton, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in 1992 voters in Seattle's 5th Congressional District went against the tide and opposed term limits, while at the same time returning their multiterm congressman-Speaker Foley-to office.

"The voters of the state of Washington were trying to tell the voters of the 5th District that they could not have the representative they wanted," Hamilton said. "From the ACLU's point of view that is outrageous."

He said the Washington law also could deprive political parties of nominating the candidates they wanted for office and giving them the added endorsement of appearing on the printed ballot.

Norman Leahy is research director for the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Term Limits, a national lobby group that has sponsored term-limit voter initiatives around the country.

He said that his organization believed that a constitutional amendment was the best way to deal with the issue of term limits but felt it could never get Congress to act on this.

"We would love to have a constitutional amendment but realistically we know that we would never get an amendment out of Congress," Leahy said. "There is nothing in this for them."

He admitted reluctantly that forcing out worthy incumbents through strict term limits could potentially damage the Congress.

"Perhaps in the short run people would miss the skills of experienced lawmakers," he said. "But in a nation of 250 million people, we can surely find 535 people who can do the job."